If Kerry did well tonight it would probably be over for Bush. No WMD, bombing of hotel in Iraq, less than expected job gain, higher oil price.

The only problem is that Bush is quite strong in the states he held, while Kerry's lead is not as strong in most states. In fact I think Kerry's weakly and barely favorable states has increased and strongly favorable states decreased. Also Maine and Nebraska are not all or nothing state and that work againt Kerry at this point.

Numerous people have attacked the pollsters for their "likely voter" methodology, particularly Gallup. They claim that Gallup's method of weeding out unlikely voters is biased and evil and bad and makes your hair fall out. Or something to that effect.

Anyway, when there are large sudden swings, usually it's due to changes in the likely voter status of certain classes of respondents. If we only looked at registered voters, the numbers would be more stable, but I do think they'd be less predictive. Tough problem.

I think it was pretty even. But Kerry needed to do better than pretty even.

Even if I were to accept Bush's obnoxious shouting, lying, and condescenion constituted an "even" performance, I would say that Kerry doesn't need to do better than he did (although I would have preferred it that way). Kerry's ahead in the polls -- his post debate bounce was much larger than anticipated. Bush has lost his mythology and, barring the extraordinary, there's no way he can gain it back in one month. The economy isn't going to miraculously recover. There isn't going to be a surge of good news from Iraq. The only thing Bush can hope for is that the bloodshed during the Afghanistan election is kept low enough that they can spin it as a victory.

Kerry still has the momentum, he's got the grassroots efforts, he's got unprecidented voter registration in battleground states and he has an energized base. Right now, the election is Kerry's to win or lose. He'll be fine as long as he keeps kicking.

the thing I noticed, before I got fed up with Bush's smug-as-shit smile, was that Kerry tends to cite facts or sources. Bush tends to just issue flat denials. like "I don't know what my opponent is talking about," or "of course we're doing everything to [create jobs,stop terrorists, etc]." And even though I acknowledge that Kerry has a sallow mug and I tire of hearing his stock speaking points, I felt he was being honest. Bush's administration record with the American people is so tarnished that I think a lot of people are going to have a hard time taking Bush's flat denials very seriously. Plus Bush just seems really stupid. still.

Alan's guess is probably better than mine concerning "who won". Most people aren't nearly as familiar with the facts as I to determine precisely where Bush is being very slippery and dishonest. But for what its worth, I think Kerry's grumpy-but-earnest mug beats Bush's bullshit smile and phony optimism hands-down.